NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSION

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA
MONDAY, JULY 20, 2026 at 6:00 P.M.
Kapālama Hale – Room 153
925 Dillingham Boulevard, Honolulu, HI 96817
AND VIA WEBEX

This meeting location is open to public participation.
Other available options include participating by computer, phone or by video system.
WebEx and phone-in instructions are as follows:

Meeting Link: https://cchnl.webex.com/cchnl/j.php?MTID=mfb3983970d0b202c4430a1f3f1a27eb1
Meeting Number / Access Code: 2485 626 8948
Password: NC00 (6200 from phones and video systems)
Join by Phone: +1-408-418-9388 United States Toll

MEETING POLICIES – Adopted July 25, 2023

Recordings of Board meetings can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/@NeighborhoodCommissionOffice

Meeting Materials can be found at: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1LS8mfBOkIKp5hqr6Fwr5Kn1HCYCURUu0

Rules of Speaking: Anyone wishing to speak is asked to raise his or her hand, and when recognized by the Chair, to address comments to the Chair. Speakers are to keep their comments under two (2) minutes. Public testimony taken on each agenda item. Please silence all electronic devices.

Note: The Commission may take action on any agenda item. As required by the State Sunshine Law (Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 92), specific issues not noted on this agenda cannot be voted on, unless properly added to the agenda.

I. CALL TO ORDER – Committee Chair Larry Veray

A. Time Limit Policy and Procedures

B. All participants are to sign in for in-person or virtually identify yourself on WEBEX

C. Roll Call of Neighborhood Plan Committee Members (All committee members must have their video turned on)

II. APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE MINUTES

A. Monday, May 11, 2026 Written Summary for Video Record

III. NEW BUSINESS

A. Committee to continue to review Chapter 14 Rules of Neighborhood Boards of the Neighborhood Plan and determine if any changes or updates are required. Committee Review:

1. §2-14-110 Executive meetings
2. §2-14-111 Meeting notice and agendas
3. §2-14-112 Priority of business
4. §2-14-113 Meeting minutes
5. §2-14-114 Quorum and majority vote
6. §2-14-115 Voting
7. §2-14-116 Disclosure
8. §2-14-117 Order and Decorum
9. §2-14-118 Discussion
10. §2-14-119 Adjournment
IV. ANNOUNCEMENTS

A. Next Meeting of the Neighborhood Commission: The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, July 27, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. on Webex, and at Kapālama Hale First Floor Conference Room 153.

B. Next Committee Meeting: The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, August 17, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. on Webex, and at Kapālama Hale First Floor Conference Room 153.

V. ADJOURNMENT

DRAFT NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN COMMITTEE MEETING WRITTEN SUMMARY FOR VIDEO RECORD
MONDAY, MAY 11, 2026 – 6:00 P.M.
KAPĀLAMA HALE CONFERENCE ROOM 153 – 925 DILLINGHAM BOULEVARD, HONOLULU, HI 96817
AND VIA WEBEX TELECONFERENCING

Video recording of this meeting can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YguINgJU6Y

Meeting materials can be found at: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1LS8mfBOkIKp5hqr6Fwr5Kn1HCYCURUu0

I. CALL TO ORDER – [0:00:09]: Committee Chair Veray called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.

Committee Members Present: Mahealani Bernal, Kathleen Elliott-Pahinui, Patrick Smith, Larry Veray, Lloyd Yonenaka, and Angie Knight (6:03 p.m.).

Committee Members Absent: Cross Crabbe.

Guests: Ellen Sofio (Mānoa Neighborhood Board No.07); Kevin Lye (Downtown-Chinatown Neighborhood Board No.13); Malia Agustin (Nānākuli-Māʻili Neighborhood Board No.36); Tom Heinrich, Claire Santos (Residents); Lloyd Yonenaka, Dylan Whitsell, Travis Saito, and Dylan Buck (Neighborhood Commission Office). There were 13 total participants. Name not included if not legible on sign-in sheet, not signed in and/or not participated in discussion.

II. APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE MINUTES – [0:01:12]

Monday, April 20, 2026 Written Summary for Video Record – [0:01:26]: Chair Veray opened the floor for any corrections. Hearing no corrections, the minutes were approved as written; 5-0-0 (Aye: Bernal, Elliott-Pahinui, Smith, Veray, Yonenaka; Nay: None; Abstain: None).

III. NEW BUSINESS – [0:01:44]

Makakilo-Kapolei-Honokai Hale Neighborhood Board No. 34 and Nānākuli-Māʻili Neighborhood Board No. 36 – Koʻolina Joint Jurisdiction Proposal – [0:01:44]: Chair Veray introduced the item, noting recent correspondence with both the Makakilo-Kapolei-Honokai Hale Neighborhood Board chair and the Nānākuli-Māʻili Neighborhood Board chair regarding their interest in a joint jurisdiction arrangement over the Koʻolina area, particularly in light of the Disney theme park and the proposed Atlantis development project.

Knight joined at 6:03 p.m.; 6 committee members present.

Questions, comments, and concerns followed – [0:02:58]:
1. Dual Jurisdiction Challenges: Yonenaka noted that state law requires development proponents to reach out to the applicable neighborhood board before filing. Under a shared boundary, proponents would need to contact both boards, potentially extending project timelines. He expressed personal opposition to dual jurisdiction on these grounds. Whitsell added that the feasibility of conducting an election across an overlapping boundary remained unclear, as voters must be assigned to one board or the other.
2. Memorandum of Agreement as Alternative: Smith recommended that rather than formally changing boundaries, the two boards draft a memorandum of agreement (MOA) affirming that both boards retain relevancy over Koʻolina matters, may raise issues, and will cooperate with whichever board holds official designation. He noted the Neighborhood Plan already permits any board to comment on island-wide issues.
3. North Shore Turtle Bay Analogy: Elliott-Pahinui described the longstanding cooperative arrangement between her North Shore Neighborhood Board and Koʻolauloa regarding Turtle Bay, which lies in Koʻolauloa’s jurisdiction but significantly impacts the North Shore.
4. Boundary Adjustment Precedent: Heinrich described a past boundary adjustment near the University of Hawaiʻi (H-1 area) to align UH with the appropriate neighborhood board. The arrangement has worked for over 20 years, with UH sending regular representation. He cautioned against adjusting boundaries solely on community ties but acknowledged a narrow adjustment could strengthen connectivity if warranted. Heinrich suggested that rather than changing jurisdictions, both boards advocate to their elected officials and the Department of Planning and Permitting (DPP) to ensure that both are designated as permanent stakeholders for Koʻolina-related projects, regardless of which board holds official designation.
5. Chair Agustin’s Input: Agustin, Chair of the Nānākuli-Māʻili NB36, arrived late and, with the committee’s permission, provided additional context. She explained that Koʻolina-area items have historically been agendized at Nānākuli board meetings; development entities present the same material to multiple boards (double-dipping); and community benefits from Koʻolina developments have been tied to Nānākuli involvement. She supported working with Chair Paris to develop a written MOA.

Neighborhood Commission Office Survey Results – [0:08:09]: Yonenaka briefed the committee on a survey distributed to all 349 neighborhood board members, of which 162 responded. Yonenaka summarized key results: (a) the largest respondent group (34%) had served on the board fewer than two years, reflecting strong new-member engagement; (b) 55% supported converting all seats to at-large only, despite 56% of respondents being from subdistrict seats; (c) board members did not support term limits for themselves, but broadly supported term limits for elected officials; (d) nearly 80% attended neighborhood board meetings before becoming members; and (e) 91% said they would continue attending board meetings even after leaving the board.

Questions, comments, and concerns followed – [0:017:32]:
1. Survey Analysis Recommendation: Lye noted the survey results would be significantly more useful with a defined analysis plan and cross-tabulation established before questions are sent, allowing identification of which subgroups responded in which ways. He requested that any future survey include a pre-established analysis framework to make results more actionable.

Committee Review of Chapter 14, Rules of Neighborhood Boards – [0:18:48]: Chair Veray announced the committee would continue its review of Chapter 14, picking up after completing §2-14-101 through §2-14-105 at the prior meeting.

§2-14-106 Absences and Removal Process; Resignation – [0:19:04]: Chair Veray read §2-14-106 aloud and commended NCO staff for their diligence in tracking absences and issuing timely notices.

Questions, comments, and concerns followed – [0:20:17]:
1. Certified Mail – Cost and Effectiveness: Whitsell noted the current certified mail requirement costs over $10 per mailing and that approximately half of certified mailings are returned undelivered, after which NCO staff contacts the member by email. He proposed eliminating the certified mail requirement. Smith and Knight agreed the certified mail requirement should be removed and that physical mail, if used at all, should remain at the NCO’s discretion as a backup option.
2. Email or First-Class Mail Language: After discussion of various formulations, Heinrich proposed specific language: notify the member “by email, if available, or first-class mail.” Elliott-Pahinui supported keeping the language simple. The committee reached consensus on this formulation and struck the certified mail and return receipt requirements.
3. Absence Counting Period – Fiscal Year to Board Term: Whitsell raised that the current language ties absence counting to the fiscal year (July 1–June 30), creating an annual reset within the two-year term. NCO staff and the committee agreed to change the counting period to the full two-year board term.
4. Lye’s Proposed Language for Subsection A: Lye proposed revised language for subsection A that: (a) fixes pronoun use; (b) clarifies that absences count whether or not the oath of office has been taken; (c) converts the one-year fiscal period to a two-year board term; and (d) changes “last regularly scheduled meeting” to “final regularly scheduled meeting” to prevent misinterpretation of “last” as “prior.” The committee adopted Lye’s language with the exception of an extended oath-of-office discussion, agreeing the intent was already captured.
5. “Last” Changed to “Final”: Lye additionally recommended changing the word “last” to “final” in the same sentence to prevent confusion between “last” (most recent) and “final” (end of term). The committee approved this change without objection.
6. Subsection B2 – Insert “Will” (Future Perfect Tense): Lye proposed inserting “will” in the next-to-last sentence of subsection B2 to correct the verb tense to future perfect, reflecting that the condition is not met until the action occurs.

Bernal left at 6:46 p.m.; 5 committee members present.

7. Subsections B and C – Chair Advocacy in Practice: Veray noted that most board chairs effectively advocate for absent members (e.g., those hospitalized, on vacation, or deployed), sometimes securing email confirmations that the member still wishes to serve. He proposed moving past subsections B and C without substantive changes, noting they function well in practice.
8. Subsection D – Prohibition on Automatic Removal: The committee reviewed subsection D, which prohibits boards from adopting policies for automatic removal and requires specific board action to declare a seat vacant. No changes were proposed.
9. Subsection E – Recurring Absence Threshold: The committee reviewed subsection E, which requires the board to continue formally considering removal after each additional two absences following the initial three. Buck noted the one-year reference in subsection E should be updated to two years, consistent with the change to subsection A. Buck also raised whether the additional-absence threshold should be increased from two to three, to reduce the volume of notifications and align with the initial three-absence trigger. Heinrich clarified the historical structure: three absences triggers initial consideration; thereafter, every two additional absences triggers reconsideration. Smith noted the two-additional structure serves an accountability function, though boards rarely remove members. The committee adopted Lye’s proposed language for subsection E updating the one-year reference to a two-year term.
10. Subsections B2 and C – Disconnected Language: Heinrich noted that statements at the end of subsection B2 and end of subsection C related to declaring a seat vacant are not directly connected in the current text. He requested an opportunity to draft connecting language and present it at the July meeting. The committee agreed to defer this structural edit.
11. Subsection C – Agenda Notification Concerns: Elliott-Pahinui raised that at least two board chairs had expressed strong objections to listing a board member’s name on the agenda for a three-absence consideration item, finding it embarrassing and punitive, particularly when absences were for legitimate reasons. Smith noted that other chairs appreciate the rule because it provides institutional authority to address the issue without it feeling personal. The committee agreed to defer this concern, with Chair Veray offering to consult the affected chairs before any policy changes are made.
12. Equity Concern – Meeting Frequency and Absence Thresholds: Whitsell noted that under a two-year absence count, members on boards that meet 24 times per term (versus 18 for boards that take recess) accumulate absences faster and face earlier consequences. Knight, before departing, noted that her board (Diamond Head-Kapahulu-St. Louis Heights Neighborhood Board No.05) meets every month without recess. Smith acknowledged the concern but stated that the board—not the plan—sets its meeting frequency, and members who serve on high-frequency boards accept that responsibility. No change proposed.

Knight left at 6:59 p.m.; 4 committee members present.

13. Subsection F – Commission Action for Quorum Failure: The committee reviewed subsection F, which allows the commission to declare a seat vacant if the board is unable to hold a meeting due to lack of quorum from a member’s successive absences. Lye proposed narrowing the language to apply only when the same board member repeatedly causes quorum failure. Veray and Smith opposed narrowing the language, preferring to retain its broader application. The committee agreed to retain subsection F as written.
14. Subsection G – Resignation: The committee reviewed subsection G, which requires resignation to be submitted in writing to the Executive Secretary. Elliott-Pahinui noted in practice that text-message resignations have been accepted as written resignations, which NCO staff copies to relevant parties without issue. Lye proposed clarifying that a verbal resignation at a board meeting takes effect immediately, and suggested language tying the effective date to the resignation reaching the chair ahead of the next agenda deadline. Veray and Smith supported retaining the written resignation requirement, emphasizing that people sometimes speak in the heat of the moment and should have the opportunity to provide a written statement. Veray suggested chairs seek immediate written confirmation of any verbal resignation. The committee declined to adopt Lye’s language and retained subsection G as written.

Smith MOVED and Elliott-Pahinui SECONDED to adopt §2-14-106 with amendments to: (1) replace the certified mail and return receipt requirements with notification by email, if available, or first-class mail; (2) change the one-year fiscal period in subsection A to the full two-year board term; (3) change “last” to “final” in subsection A; (4) insert “will” in subsection B2; and (5) adopt Lye’s proposed language for subsection E updating the one-year reference to a two-year board term. Additional language connecting the statements in subsections B2 and C to be submitted by Heinrich at the July meeting. Hearing no objections, the motion was ADOPTED; 4-0-0 (Aye: Elliott-Pahinui, Smith, Veray, Yonenaka; Nay: None; Abstain: None).

§2-14-107 Reporting Change of Residency – [1:09:01]: Chair Veray introduced §2-14-107 as procedural and straightforward. NCO staff confirmed they had no major substantive concerns on initial reading.

Questions, comments, and concerns followed – [1:09:20]:
1. Certified Mail Replaced with Email/First-Class: Subsection E of §2-14-107 also contains a certified mail requirement. The committee agreed to apply the same language change adopted in §2-14-106: email preferred, or first-class mail. The return receipt language would also be deleted.
2. Effective Date of Disqualification – Lame Duck Voting Concern: Lye raised what he described as a lame-duck voting loophole in subsection E: under the current language, the effective date of disqualification is tied to the delivery of the certified letter, meaning a member who has moved out of the district could technically continue voting on the board until the letter is delivered and processed. Lye proposed language clarifying that disqualification takes effect on the date the member is no longer eligible to serve. Smith and Whitsell agreed with the principle while acknowledging the NCO operates on an honor system and has no investigatory capacity. The committee agreed to change the effective date of disqualification to “the date the member is no longer eligible to serve in their position.”

Smith MOVED and Elliott-Pahinui SECONDED to adopt §2-14-107 with amendments to: (1) replace the certified mail and return receipt requirement with email preferred or first-class mail; and (2) change the effective date of disqualification to the date the member is no longer eligible to serve in their position. Hearing no objections, the motion was ADOPTED; 4-0-0 (Aye: Elliott-Pahinui, Smith, Veray, Yonenaka; Nay: None; Abstain: None).

§2-14-108 Disqualification by Relocation (REPEALED) – [1:18:17]: This section has been repealed. No action taken.

§2-14-109 Meetings – [1:18:24]: Chair Veray read §2-14-109 aloud.

Questions, comments, and concerns followed – [1:21:15]:
1. Emergency Proclamations and Meeting Requirements: Veray noted that two consecutive months of meeting cancellations in the current fiscal year due to Kona low weather emergency proclamations raised a question about compliance with the nine-meeting-per-year minimum. Buck confirmed the NCO cancelled those meetings and explained that emergency proclamations effectively supersede the meeting requirement for affected boards. No language change was proposed.
2. Subsection E – Outdated Recording Language: The committee noted that subsection E references recording “by means of tape recorder,” an outdated formulation. Lye proposed updated language: “all or any part of the meeting except executive meeting may be recorded by a person in attendance by any means of audio-visual reproduction, provided.” The committee agreed this appropriately reflects current technology and Sunshine Law requirements.
3. Subsection D – Agenda Filing Time Deadline: Whitsell requested adding a specific time deadline (noon) to the seven-day agenda filing requirement for regular meetings, noting that without a specified time, NCO staff receives agendas as late as 11:59 p.m. on the seventh day or even on the sixth day, creating compliance issues and operational burdens. He proposed: “The agenda shall be filed with the Neighborhood Commission Office by noon, seven calendar days prior to the meeting.” He noted the Sunshine Law requires six days, so the current seven-day requirement already provides a buffer; the noon deadline would further protect NCO operational capacity.
4. Subsection D – Consequence for Late Filing: Whitsell requested adding enforcement language providing that failure to file the agenda by noon on the seventh day shall result in the meeting being recessed. The committee agreed to the intent and approved language along the lines of: “Failure to meet the deadline stated above shall result in the meeting being recessed.” Final specific language to be confirmed by NCO staff.
5. Subsection D – Special Meeting “Or by the Board” Language: Lye raised questions about the provision allowing a special meeting to be called “by the presiding officer or by the board,” specifically how the board—as a collective—can call a meeting outside of a regular meeting without violating the Sunshine Law. He argued the clause protects minority board member rights, including the right to call a meeting to address chair misconduct. Yonenaka argued that if the board wants to call a special meeting, it should do so during a regular meeting. Veray and Smith argued for deleting the “or by the board” language, noting that all special meetings are in practice called by the chair; if the board wants a special meeting, it can vote during a regular meeting; and the logistics of the board calling a meeting outside a regular meeting are practically unclear. Smith noted the plan already provides a process for removing a board chair. Lye strongly opposed deletion. A motion to delete “or by the board” was made and seconded and passed over Lye’s objection. Chair Veray noted the committee will revisit this language upon final review and invited Lye to submit proposed alternative language.

Smith MOVED and Elliott-Pahinui SECONDED to adopt §2-14-109 with amendments to: (1) update recording language in subsection E to “any means of audio-visual reproduction”; (2) add a noon deadline for agenda filing in subsection D; (3) add a consequence for late filing (meeting shall be recessed); and (4) delete the language “or by the board” from the special meeting provision in subsection D. Hearing no objections, the motion was ADOPTED; 4-0-0 (Aye: Elliott-Pahinui, Smith, Veray, Yonenaka; Nay: None; Abstain: None).

§2-14-110 Executive Meetings: Deferred to the next meeting.
§2-14-111 Meeting Notice and Agendas: Deferred to the next meeting.
§2-14-112 Priority of Business: Deferred to the next meeting.
§2-14-113 Meeting Minutes: Deferred to the next meeting.

Hearing no objections, Chair Veray added an item to the agenda to allow Ellen Sofio, a Mānoa Neighborhood Board member attending in her individual capacity as a long-time Mānoa community member, to briefly address the committee on a concern related to the Neighborhood Plan.

Community Member Concern Regarding Committee Governance – [1:37:53]: Ellen introduced herself as a recently joined Mānoa Neighborhood Board member (since January 2026) speaking as a community member. She described a pattern she characterized as “rogue initiatives” – a rapid series of resolutions brought before the board over the prior several months, all originating from a committee of one or two members, without the knowledge, participation, or outreach to the broader community or the specifically affected neighborhoods. Specific examples included resolutions on sidewalks, a traffic roundabout (which EMS and police opposed as unsafe and which continued to be pursued despite that opposition), and undergrounding power lines on University Avenue. In one case, the affected neighborhood discovered a resolution had already been voted on; community members subsequently submitted overwhelming opposing testimony, and the board rescinded the resolution. Ellen asked whether the neighborhood plan could be amended to require committees to present topics to the full board before beginning work.

Questions, comments, and concerns followed – [1:42:28]:
1. Committees Cannot Force Resolutions: Elliott-Pahinui noted committees cannot compel board action – all resolutions must come before the full board for a vote, which is when the community has its opportunity to speak. The board’s rescission of the roundabout resolution demonstrates the system’s checks working as intended.
2. Purpose of Committees as Vetting Bodies: Elliott-Pahinui explained that the proper function of a committee is to fully vet and develop an issue and then bring a recommendation to the full board. The board retains authority over the committee, not the reverse. A well-functioning committee frees the board from doing the detail work; the board then decides whether to accept the recommendation.
3. Chair’s Responsibility for Committee Oversight: Veray and Smith emphasized that the board chair is responsible for directing and overseeing committees, ensuring proper membership, adequate vetting, and appropriate scope. A small committee operating without oversight reflects a breakdown in chair management, not a structural defect in the plan. Chairs should require committee chairs to brief them and should expand committee membership when needed.
4. Open Committee Meetings as a Built-In Check: Whitsell noted that committee meetings are public, noticed, agendized, and posted online. Community members can attend committee meetings and provide counter-opinions before a resolution reaches the board. If the public does not attend, that opportunity is theirs to exercise.
5. Board Members’ Right to Question and Defer: Smith and Elliott-Pahinui advised that any board member may and should ask questions during board consideration of a resolution, such as which community stakeholders were consulted. If no outreach occurred, the board member can move to postpone the vote pending community engagement. Veray noted that on his own board he requires an issue paper before a resolution is agendized, and that his committee chairs share drafts with him in advance so nothing is a surprise. The committee will address committee governance further when it reaches the relevant chapter of the Neighborhood Plan.

IV. ANNOUNCEMENTS – [1:52:20]

Next Meeting of the Neighborhood Commission – [1:52:20]: The next meeting of the Neighborhood Commission is scheduled for Monday, May 18, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. at Kapālama Hale First Floor Conference Room 153, and on Webex.

Next Neighborhood Plan Committee Meeting – [1:52:22]: The committee will be in recess for the month of June. The next Neighborhood Plan Committee meeting is scheduled for Monday, July 20, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. on Webex and at Kapālama Hale First Floor Conference Room 153.

V. ADJOURNMENT – [1:52:40]: The meeting was adjourned at 7:54 p.m.

Submitted by: Dylan Buck, Community Relations Specialist, NCO
Reviewed by: Dylan Whitsell, Deputy, NCO
Finalized by:

To view agenda and minutes, visit our board website.

Event shows physical location; however, other options of participation may also include WebEx and phone.  If available, instructions for WebEx and phone can be found at the top of the agenda.